Columnist: Ethics watchdogs go from snarling to snoozing

The ethics inquiry into past business dealings of Mayor Lionel Rivera has plodded along in virtual silence and secrecy, even as city insiders (including the mayor), secretly negotiated how much more money it might cost the rest of us to salvage the USOC deal. There has been no hurry on the one hand, and too much hurry on the other. But wouldn’t it be nice for the public to understand what went wrong with the first USOC “deal” before getting a new one?

All this has me thinking back to the last major ethics flap involving a member of City Council. What a contrast we see between then and now. 

Many may recall that it involved allegations that Councilman Tom Gallagher had a conflict of interest, stemming from work he did for a company owned by the wife of developer Mark Morley, who was at the time ruffling council feathers by pushing an alternative route for the Southern Delivery System. Though Gallagher denied the allegations, his council colleagues were frothing at the mouth over the link, demanding, frequently in ad hominum tones, that he recuse himself from any SDS-related votes or deliberations. It was the case that prompted a change of city ethics policies in 2007, which are being test-driven today with the Rivera inquiry.   

Reviewing the Gallagher case, one is struck by two standards of justice that apply. Gallagher seemed convicted by colleagues even before City Attorney Pat Kelly conducted an investigation. He was lambasted by now Vice Mayor Larry Small, and told his guilt or innocence really didn’t matter because he had no “credibility” anyway. Council colleagues threatened to hire a private investigator to dig up dirt on Gallagher (but backed off after he demanded that all of the proceedings be public). And remember this: Mayor Rivera led the charge against Gallagher, detailing the case for conflict of interest in a lengthy memo (secret until Gallagher made it public) which read like a verdict of guilt. The mayor insisted that it was nothing personal; he just felt the city’s integrity was at stake. And he, the mayor, was going to clean up the city.

Gallagher survived politically because the general public apparently just didn’t see the web of conspiracy some colleagues were weaving. There was a kangaroo court aspect to the episode that may have offended the public’s sense of fairness.

Now fast forward today. What a difference one sees — though it’s the same council we had back then, minus Richard Skorman and Margaret Radford. Where our council back then was forceful (too forceful) in spotlighting Gallagher’s alleged misconduct, and in wanting to get to the bottom of things, this Council seems downright disinterested in whether Mayor Rivera was doing favors for a client that landed the USOC deal. Colleagues didn’t even ask him to step away from the new USOC negotiations. They insist the “process,” such as it is, must be strictly followed.

What explains these contrasting approaches? Politics, broadly speaking, and City Council group dynamics.
Gallagher became a target because he rocked the boat (as he continues to rock the boat) on SDS. His questions and criticisms were infuriating to some colleagues (especially Rivera and Radford) who thought they had everything dialed-in on running the pipe to Pueblo and didn’t want anyone — especially a colleague — messing with the plan. Gallagher was odd man out, which made it open season when questions arose.

The mayor is getting different treatment, and afforded every benefit of the doubt, because he is part of the majority clique on a consensus-craving council, where breaking from the pack is frowned upon. He’s also an architect of the first USOC deal, which this council had a lot invested in before it imploded.
To question Rivera’s involvement in that deal was to question the soundness and wisdom of what council hurriedly signed off on — something council wasn’t about to do while scrambling to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Gallagher was an outsider. Rivera is the consummate insider.

The “Gallagher treatment” was unjust, and I’m not arguing that a similar approach should be taken with the mayor. But the city’s new ethics regime appears to have major flaws, which need to be addressed after the Rivera probe is finished. Members of City Council shouldn’t have a double standard when it comes to ferreting out the facts.

Paige, who formerly edited The Gazette’s opinion pages, is editor of Local Liberty Online.org, where be writes the “Page by Paige” blog. Write him at Seanpaige@msn.com.